It's fine to call dev_err_probe() in ->probe() when error code is known.
Convert the driver to use dev_err_probe().
Signed-off-by: zhaoxiao <[email protected]>
---
v2: remove the %d in the message.
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 10 +++-------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index f3647b317152..c6e088c1a6bf 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -330,16 +330,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (IS_ERR(pc->pclk)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(pc->pclk);
- if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't get APB clk: %d\n", ret);
- return ret;
+ return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't get APB clk\n");
}
ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
- if (ret) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk: %d\n", ret);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk\n");
ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->pclk);
if (ret) {
--
2.20.1
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 03:55:03PM +0800, zhaoxiao wrote:
> It's fine to call dev_err_probe() in ->probe() when error code is known.
> Convert the driver to use dev_err_probe().
>
> Signed-off-by: zhaoxiao <[email protected]>
Is zhaoxiao your real name, or is that a nickname/pseudonym? If the
latter please use your real name here. See
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for the justification.
> ---
> v2: remove the %d in the message.
>
> drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index f3647b317152..c6e088c1a6bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -330,16 +330,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> if (IS_ERR(pc->pclk)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(pc->pclk);
> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't get APB clk: %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't get APB clk\n");
> }
This could be further simplified (as pointed out in the (implicit) v1)
to:
if (IS_ERR(pc->pclk))
return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(pc->pclk), "Can't get APB clk\n");
but I wouldn't insist on that one as it's somewhat subjective if you
like it better on two lines.
>
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk: %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk\n");
>
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->pclk);
> if (ret) {
The context here continues with:
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable APB clk: %d\n", ret);
this could benefit from dev_err_probe(), too.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Le 18/08/2022 à 09:55, zhaoxiao a écrit :
> It's fine to call dev_err_probe() in ->probe() when error code is known.
> Convert the driver to use dev_err_probe().
>
> Signed-off-by: zhaoxiao <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2: remove the %d in the message.
Hi,
You did more than that.
>
> drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index f3647b317152..c6e088c1a6bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -330,16 +330,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> if (IS_ERR(pc->pclk)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(pc->pclk);
> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't get APB clk: %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't get APB clk\n");
> }
You could use PTR_ERR(pc->pclk) directly. There is no need to assign it
to 'ret'. This would simplify even further the code. ({} can be removed)
>
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk: %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk\n");
Is a 'return' before dev_err_probe() missing?
Before we were returning the error code, now we ignore it and continue.
If done on purpose, you should explain why in the commit log.
>
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->pclk);
> if (ret) {
Why just converting 2 dev_err() and leaving the other one in the probe
untouched?
CJ